Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/743328
NOVEMBER 2016 12 THE JOURNAL Just after this article appears, Americans will head to the polls to decide who will become the 45th president of the United States and which political party will control the Senate and House of Representatives. For manufactured housing, as an industry that is comprehensively regulated at the federal level, the results – and their af- termath, in terms of the economy, the housing market and the regulatory climate that will emerge over the next four (or more) years – will be vitally important. And given the unusually deep philosophical and policy differences be- tween the two major-party candidates in this particular election, the outcome could mark a significant fork-in-the-road for the industry and its consumers. To start, it is important to note that manu- factured housing, unlike many other industries, has traditionally enjoyed broad support on both sides of the political aisle. The reasons are straightforward. The industry provides housing that is inherently affordable for all Americans. It provides the opportunity for homeownership for all Americans, at every rung of the eco- nomic ladder – and all of the benefits that go along with homeownership. It provides good jobs for Americans across the country, includ- ing manufacturing jobs which are becoming in- creasingly scarce. And, it generates significant economic activity – at all levels, from suppli- ers, to manufacturers, to transporters, to in- stallers, to communities, financial services and others -- which helps to build neighborhoods and communities, and produces tax revenues for schools, police and fire departments, and other public needs. The industry, moreover, while delivering all of these positives, does not seek special subsidies or largess from govern- ment, only parity and even-handed treatment with all other types of housing. The broad bi-partisan support earned by the industry has served it well over the years. The landmark Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 was passed in both houses of Con- gress with unanimous bi-partisan support and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The "Duty to Serve" provision of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, as well as the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Title I manufactured housing pro- gram improvements con- tained in that law, were also adopted with key support from both sides of the polit- ical aisle, while other initia- tives that remain pending, such as the full inclusion of all types of manufactured housing loans in housing finance reform legislation, have received strong support from members of both parties. Members of Congress from both parties have also played an important and some- times crucial role over the years in urging HUD, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), FHA and other agencies to take specific actions to fully and properly implement these good laws, in accordance with their express terms and intent. The industry, then -- for the most part -- has been able to count on Congress for good laws and for a high level of responsiveness to its concerns and the needs of its consumers. Where the problems have occurred, however, has been in the implementation of these good laws by the various federal agencies and their largely unaccountable bureaucracies. Thus, watershed laws that could -- and should – have resulted in a manufactured housing boom, with production levels in the hundreds-of- thousands of homes, have, in key respects, been squandered, as the industry continues to recover only slowly from the historic production lows it experienced just after the credit crisis of 2008. And while MHARR, for its part, has worked tirelessly over the years to aggressively pursue the full and proper implementation of these laws for the good of the en- tire industry (and consumers), other voices have seemed to be more focused on what works for the industry's largest businesses, particularly over the past decade. Nevertheless, it will be in this arena – the ongoing battle for the full and proper implementation of beneficial laws – that the industry will face some of its toughest challenges going forward. It is against this backdrop of a strongly bi- partisan industry legislative track record on the one hand, and serious administrative imple- mentation challenges on the other, that the 2016 presidential candidates offer vastly con- trasting views on the economy, trade, the role and nature of federal regulation, types and lev- els of taxation, and a myriad of other issues that could significantly impact the industry, either positively or negatively, going forward. And while the American people will ulti- mately have to make the choice as to who will govern and set policy priorities for the United States over the next four years, the industry and those who represent it need to be prepared with strategies to advance, protect and defend the industry – and its consumers – that account for the differing world-views of the two candidates, and are ready to be implemented after the elec- tion. Readiness, preparedness, and a clear-eyed evaluation of the post- election political landscape in Washington, D.C. will be critical for the industry going for- Changes and Challenges Ahead MHARR VIEWPOINT BY MARK WEISS \ 19